bpf_jit_compile issues on x86_64
Subsystems (5)
On a 3.1.8 kernel, I've had a few snort boxes panic when using the new bpf_jit code. Setting bpf_jit_enable back to 0 solves the problem. Below is the warning, followed by the panic. I've checked the current Linus tree, but other than a03ffcf8 (which exists in 3.1.8) I don't see anything new in this area. Any ideas? Eric?
Thanks,
Phil
WARNING: at arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c:608 bpf_jit_compile+0xde8/0xe70() Hardware name: PowerEdge 2950 Modules linked in: iptable_nat ipt_LOG xt_limit xt_pkttype xt_tcpudp xt_state xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables nf_nat_tftp nf_nat_ftp nf_nat nf_conntrack_tftp nf_conntrack_ftp nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_conntrack scsi_wait_scan bnx2 ipmi_devintf ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler e1000e iTCO_wdt ata_piix megaraid_sas Pid: 1254, comm: snort-plain Not tainted 3.1.8-asdf.2.fc16.x86_64 #1 Call Trace: [<ffffffff8103024b>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x7b/0xc0 [<ffffffff81023b18>] ? bpf_jit_compile+0xde8/0xe70 [<ffffffff8125e045>] ? sk_chk_filter+0x255/0x330 [<ffffffff8125e296>] ? sk_attach_filter+0xa6/0x180 [<ffffffff81240974>] ? sock_setsockopt+0x374/0x7c0 [<ffffffff8123cd76>] ? sys_setsockopt+0xc6/0xe0 [<ffffffff812d0e7b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b ---[ end trace 6b276feef74ef40a ]--- BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00000000a0000000 IP: [<ffffffff812437f8>] skb_release_head_state+0x28/0xe0 PGD 223535067 PUD 0 Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP CPU 4 Modules linked in: iptable_nat ipt_LOG xt_limit xt_pkttype xt_tcpudp xt_state xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables nf_nat_tftp nf_nat_ftp nf_nat nf_conntrack_tftp nf_conntrack_ftp nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_conntrack scsi_wait_scan bnx2 ipmi_devintf ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler e1000e iTCO_wdt ata_piix megaraid_sas
Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Tainted: G W 3.1.8-asdf.2.fc16.x86_64 #1 Dell Inc. PowerEdge 2950/xxxxx
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812437f8>] [<ffffffff812437f8>] skb_release_head_state+0x28/0xe0 RSP: 0018:ffff88022fd03c80 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffff8802235c4000 RCX: ffff880220c4c000 RDX: ffff88022617b000 RSI: 000000000000000c RDI: 00000000a0000000 RBP: ffff880226181c00 R08: ffff880224101840 R09: 000000000000003c R10: 0000000000000009 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 000000000000003c R13: 0000000000000005 R14: ffff880220c4c000 R15: ffff88022410184e FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88022fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b CR2: 00000000a0000000 CR3: 0000000223490000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Process kworker/0:1 (pid: 0, threadinfo ffff8802260d6000, task ffff8802260d8000) Stack: ffff8802235c4000 ffffffff812436e9 ffff8802235c4000 ffffffff812bcf3c ffff880224101840 000000010010000f 0000000000000042 0000000000000000 0000002e1d6a0001 ffff880224101800 0000008027002900 ffff880220c4c000 Call Trace: <IRQ> [<ffffffff812436e9>] ? __kfree_skb+0x9/0x90 [<ffffffff812bcf3c>] ? tpacket_rcv+0x10c/0x660 [<ffffffff810a9cb4>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x14/0x90 [<ffffffff8124abc3>] ? __netif_receive_skb+0x363/0x400 [<ffffffff8124dd30>] ? netif_receive_skb+0x70/0x80 [<ffffffff8124ecab>] ? napi_gro_receive+0x9b/0xb0 [<ffffffff8124de08>] ? napi_skb_finish+0x38/0x50 [<ffffffffa005b1f8>] ? e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x278/0x380 [e1000e] [<ffffffffa005a9d6>] ? e1000_clean+0x76/0x2c0 [e1000e] [<ffffffff8124e631>] ? net_rx_action+0xe1/0x160 [<ffffffff81035938>] ? __do_softirq+0x98/0x120 [<ffffffff812d2d6c>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x26 [<ffffffff81003acd>] ? do_softirq+0x4d/0x80 [<ffffffff8100398c>] ? do_IRQ+0x5c/0xd0 [<ffffffff812d086b>] ? common_interrupt+0x6b/0x6b <EOI> [<ffffffff812ce930>] ? __schedule+0x230/0x5f0 [<ffffffff810090f1>] ? mwait_idle+0x51/0x70 [<ffffffff81000796>] ? cpu_idle+0x96/0xb0 Code: 00 00 00 53 48 89 fb 48 8b 7f 58 48 85 ff 74 12 40 f6 c7 01 0f 84 99 00 00 00 48 c7 43 58 00 00 00 00 48 8b 7b 60 48 85 ff 74 0a <f0> ff 0f 0f 94 c0 84 c0 75 6e 48 8b 83 80 00 00 00 48 85 c0 74 RIP [<ffffffff812437f8>] skb_release_head_state+0x28/0xe0 RSP <ffff88022fd03c80> CR2: 00000000a0000000 ---[ end trace 6b276feef74ef40b ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Tainted: G D W 3.1.8-asdf.2.fc16.x86_64 #1 Call Trace: <IRQ> [<ffffffff812cb6f2>] ? panic+0x95/0x18e [<ffffffff8100508b>] ? oops_end+0x9b/0xa0 [<ffffffff812cb01a>] ? no_context+0x1fa/0x209 [<ffffffff8101e62b>] ? do_page_fault+0x38b/0x430 [<ffffffff81026229>] ? enqueue_task_fair+0xc9/0xf0 [<ffffffff810255c8>] ? activate_task+0x48/0x60 [<ffffffff810253bd>] ? check_preempt_curr+0x6d/0x90 [<ffffffff81025461>] ? ttwu_do_wakeup+0x11/0x90 [<ffffffff8102c28b>] ? try_to_wake_up+0xcb/0x270 [<ffffffff812d0a6f>] ? page_fault+0x1f/0x30 [<ffffffff812437f8>] ? skb_release_head_state+0x28/0xe0 [<ffffffff812436e9>] ? __kfree_skb+0x9/0x90 [<ffffffff812bcf3c>] ? tpacket_rcv+0x10c/0x660 [<ffffffff810a9cb4>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x14/0x90 [<ffffffff8124abc3>] ? __netif_receive_skb+0x363/0x400 [<ffffffff8124dd30>] ? netif_receive_skb+0x70/0x80 [<ffffffff8124ecab>] ? napi_gro_receive+0x9b/0xb0 [<ffffffff8124de08>] ? napi_skb_finish+0x38/0x50 [<ffffffffa005b1f8>] ? e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x278/0x380 [e1000e] [<ffffffffa005a9d6>] ? e1000_clean+0x76/0x2c0 [e1000e] [<ffffffff8124e631>] ? net_rx_action+0xe1/0x160 [<ffffffff81035938>] ? __do_softirq+0x98/0x120 [<ffffffff812d2d6c>] ? call_softirq+0x1c/0x26 [<ffffffff81003acd>] ? do_softirq+0x4d/0x80 [<ffffffff8100398c>] ? do_IRQ+0x5c/0xd0 [<ffffffff812d086b>] ? common_interrupt+0x6b/0x6b <EOI> [<ffffffff812ce930>] ? __schedule+0x230/0x5f0 [<ffffffff810090f1>] ? mwait_idle+0x51/0x70 [<ffffffff81000796>] ? cpu_idle+0x96/0xb0
Quoted 6 lines · Phil Oester
On a 3.1.8 kernel, I've had a few snort boxes panic when using the new
bpf_jitcode. Settingbpf_jit_enableback to 0 solves the problem. Below is the warning, followed by the panic. I've checked the current Linus tree, but other thana03ffcf8(which exists in 3.1.8) I don't see anything new in this area. Any ideas? Eric?
Hi Phil, thanks for the report !
Any chance you could send me the bpf filter that was loaded at this time ?
Please try the following patch :
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +5 -1
@@ -584,6 +584,7 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i]; ilen = prog - temp;if (image) {if (unlikely (proglen + ilen > oldproglen)) { +bpf_fatal_error:pr_err ("bpb_jit_compile fatal error\n" );kfree (addrs);module_free (NULL , image);
@@ -605,7 +606,10 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i]; cleanup_addr -=4 ;/* mov -8(%rbp),%rbx */ if (image) { -WARN_ON (proglen != oldproglen); +if (proglen != oldproglen) { +pr_err ("proglen=%u != oldproglen=%u\n" , proglen, oldproglen); + goto bpf_fatal_error; + }break ; }if (proglen == oldproglen) {
Quoted 8 lines · Eric Dumazet
Quoted 6 lines · Phil Oester
On a 3.1.8 kernel, I've had a few snort boxes panic when using the new
bpf_jitcode. Settingbpf_jit_enableback to 0 solves the problem. Below is the warning, followed by the panic. I've checked the current Linus tree, but other thana03ffcf8(which exists in 3.1.8) I don't see anything new in this area. Any ideas? Eric?
Quoted 5 lines
Hi Phil, thanks for the report !
Any chance you could send me the bpf filter that was loaded at this time ?
Hmm, I found the bug, I'll send a cumulative patch in following hours.
Thanks again
PATCH 1/1 net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
Target of the conditional jump in case a divide by 0 is performed by a bpf is wrong.
Also change the wrong length detection at the end of code generation to issue a more explicit message and abort the compilation.
---
Please Phil test following fix, thanks !
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +16 -6
@@ -260,9 +260,14 @@ void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp)case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X :/* A /= X; */ seen |=SEEN_XREG ;EMIT2 (0x85 ,0xdb );/* test %ebx,%ebx */ -if (pc_ret0 !=-1 ) -EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JE , addrs[pc_ret0] - (addrs[i] -4 )); -else { +if (pc_ret0 >0 ) { +/* addrs[pc_ret0 - 1] is start address of target +* (addrs[i] - 4) is the address following this jmp +* ("xor %edx,%edx; div %ebx" being 4 bytes long) +*/ +EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JE , addrs[pc_ret0 -1 ] - + (addrs[i] -4 )); + }else {EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JNE ,2 +5 );CLEAR_A ();EMIT1_off32 (0xe9 , cleanup_addr - (addrs[i] -4 ));/* jmp .+off32 */
@@ -483,8 +488,9 @@ common_load: seen |= SEEN_DATAREF; goto common_load;case BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH :if ((int )K <0 ) { -if (pc_ret0 !=-1 ) { -EMIT_JMP (addrs[pc_ret0] - addrs[i]); +if (pc_ret0 >0 ) { +/* addrs[pc_ret0 - 1] is the start address */ +EMIT_JMP (addrs[pc_ret0 -1 ] - addrs[i]);break ; }CLEAR_A ();
@@ -584,6 +590,7 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i]; ilen = prog - temp;if (image) {if (unlikely (proglen + ilen > oldproglen)) { +bpf_fatal_error:pr_err ("bpb_jit_compile fatal error\n" );kfree (addrs);module_free (NULL , image);
@@ -605,7 +612,10 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i]; cleanup_addr -=4 ;/* mov -8(%rbp),%rbx */ if (image) { -WARN_ON (proglen != oldproglen); +if (proglen != oldproglen) { +pr_err ("proglen=%u != oldproglen=%u\n" , proglen, oldproglen); + goto bpf_fatal_error; + }break ; }if (proglen == oldproglen) {
Re: [PATCH] net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
Quoted 10 lines · Eric Dumazet
Target of the conditional jump in case a divide by 0 is performed by a bpf is wrong.
Also change the wrong length detection at the end of code generation to issue a more explicit message and abort the compilation.
Reported-by Phil Oester <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>---
Please Phil test following fix, thanks !
Got the following output after applying this fix (no panic this time):
proglen=231 != oldproglen=235bpb_jit_compile fatal error
Filter being used is 'not net a.b.x.112/28 and not net a.b.y.112/28'
Thanks,
Phil
Re: [PATCH] net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
Quoted 6 lines · Phil Oester
Got the following output after applying this fix (no panic this time):
proglen=231 != oldproglen=235
bpb_jit_compilefatal errorFilter being used is 'not net a.b.x.112/28 and not net a.b.y.112/28'
Thanks !
It seems there is another bug, I'll send you a new patch once fixed.
PATCH v2 1/1 net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
Several problems fixed in this patch :
1) Target of the conditional jump in case a divide by 0 is performed by a bpf is wrong.
2) Must 'generate' the full function prologue/epilogue at pass=0, or else we can stop too early in pass=1 if the proglen doesnt change. (if the increase of prologue/epilogue equals decrease of all instructions length because some jumps are converted to near jumps)
3) Change the wrong length detection at the end of code generation to issue a more explicit message, no need for a full stack trace.
---
Please Phil test following fix, thanks !
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c +22 -14
@@ -151,17 +151,18 @@ void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp) cleanup_addr = proglen;/* epilogue address */ for (pass =0 ; pass <10 ; pass++) { +u8 seen_or_pass0 = (pass ==0 ) ? (SEEN_XREG |SEEN_DATAREF |SEEN_MEM ) : seen;/* no prologue/epilogue for trivial filters (RET something) */ proglen =0 ; prog = temp; -if (seen) { +if (seen_or_pass0) {EMIT4 (0x55 ,0x48 ,0x89 ,0xe5 );/* push %rbp; mov %rsp,%rbp */ EMIT4 (0x48 ,0x83 ,0xec ,96 );/* subq $96,%rsp */ /* note : must save %rbx in case bpf_error is hit */ -if (seen & (SEEN_XREG |SEEN_DATAREF )) +if (seen_or_pass0 & (SEEN_XREG |SEEN_DATAREF ))EMIT4 (0x48 ,0x89 ,0x5d ,0xf8 );/* mov %rbx, -8(%rbp) */ -if (seen &SEEN_XREG ) +if (seen_or_pass0 &SEEN_XREG )CLEAR_X ();/* make sure we dont leek kernel memory */ /*
@@ -170,7 +171,7 @@ void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp)* r9 = skb->len - skb->data_len * r8 = skb->data */ -if (seen &SEEN_DATAREF ) { +if (seen_or_pass0 &SEEN_DATAREF ) {if (offsetof(struct sk_buff , len) <=127 )/* mov off8(%rdi),%r9d */ EMIT4 (0x44 ,0x8b ,0x4f , offsetof(struct sk_buff , len));
@@ -260,9 +261,14 @@ void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp)case BPF_S_ALU_DIV_X :/* A /= X; */ seen |=SEEN_XREG ;EMIT2 (0x85 ,0xdb );/* test %ebx,%ebx */ -if (pc_ret0 !=-1 ) -EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JE , addrs[pc_ret0] - (addrs[i] -4 )); -else { +if (pc_ret0 >0 ) { +/* addrs[pc_ret0 - 1] is start address of target +* (addrs[i] - 4) is the address following this jmp +* ("xor %edx,%edx; div %ebx" being 4 bytes long) +*/ +EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JE , addrs[pc_ret0 -1 ] - + (addrs[i] -4 )); + }else {EMIT_COND_JMP (X86_JNE ,2 +5 );CLEAR_A ();EMIT1_off32 (0xe9 , cleanup_addr - (addrs[i] -4 ));/* jmp .+off32 */
@@ -335,12 +341,12 @@ void bpf_jit_compile(struct sk_filter *fp) }/* fallinto */ case BPF_S_RET_A : -if (seen) { +if (seen_or_pass0) {if (i != flen -1 ) {EMIT_JMP (cleanup_addr - addrs[i]);break ; } -if (seen &SEEN_XREG ) +if (seen_or_pass0 &SEEN_XREG )EMIT4 (0x48 ,0x8b ,0x5d ,0xf8 );/* mov -8(%rbp),%rbx */ EMIT1 (0xc9 );/* leaveq */ }
@@ -483,8 +489,9 @@ common_load: seen |= SEEN_DATAREF; goto common_load;case BPF_S_LDX_B_MSH :if ((int )K <0 ) { -if (pc_ret0 !=-1 ) { -EMIT_JMP (addrs[pc_ret0] - addrs[i]); +if (pc_ret0 >0 ) { +/* addrs[pc_ret0 - 1] is the start address */ +EMIT_JMP (addrs[pc_ret0 -1 ] - addrs[i]);break ; }CLEAR_A ();
@@ -599,13 +606,14 @@ cond_branch: f_offset = addrs[i + filter[i].jf] - addrs[i];* use it to give the cleanup instruction(s) addr */ cleanup_addr = proglen -1 ;/* ret */ -if (seen) +if (seen_or_pass0) cleanup_addr -=1 ;/* leaveq */ -if (seen &SEEN_XREG ) +if (seen_or_pass0 &SEEN_XREG ) cleanup_addr -=4 ;/* mov -8(%rbp),%rbx */ if (image) { -WARN_ON (proglen != oldproglen); +if (proglen != oldproglen) +pr_err ("bpb_jit_compile proglen=%u != oldproglen=%u\n" , proglen, oldproglen);break ; }if (proglen == oldproglen) {
Re: [PATCH v2] net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
Quoted 10 lines · Eric Dumazet
Several problems fixed in this patch :
1) Target of the conditional jump in case a divide by 0 is performed by a bpf is wrong.
2) Must 'generate' the full function prologue/epilogue at pass=0, or else we can stop too early in pass=1 if the proglen doesnt change. (if the increase of prologue/epilogue equals decrease of all instructions length because some jumps are converted to near jumps)
Quoted 7 lines
3) Change the wrong length detection at the end of code generation to issue a more explicit message, no need for a full stack trace.
Reported-by Phil Oester <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>---
Please Phil test following fix, thanks !
Looks good in testing so far, thank you!
Phil
David Miller
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2] net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
In reply to Eric DumazetFrom: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:21:42 +0100
Quoted 10 lines
Several problems fixed in this patch :
1) Target of the conditional jump in case a divide by 0 is performed by a bpf is wrong.
2) Must 'generate' the full function prologue/epilogue at pass=0, or else we can stop too early in pass=1 if the proglen doesnt change. (if the increase of prologue/epilogue equals decrease of all instructions length because some jumps are converted to near jumps)
Quoted 5 lines
3) Change the wrong length detection at the end of code generation to issue a more explicit message, no need for a full stack trace.
Reported-by Phil Oester <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.
Re: [PATCH] net: bpf_jit: fix divide by 0 generation
In reply to Eric DumazetQuoted 9 lines · Eric Dumazet
Quoted 6 lines · Phil Oester
Got the following output after applying this fix (no panic this time):
proglen=231 != oldproglen=235
bpb_jit_compilefatal errorFilter being used is 'not net a.b.x.112/28 and not net a.b.y.112/28'
By the way, libcap gives following code, not optimal
(000) ldh [12] (001) jeq #0x800 jt 2 jf 14 (002) ld [26] (003) and #0xfffffff0 (004) jeq #0x1020340 jt 28 jf 5 (005) ld [26] (006) and #0xfffffff0 (007) jeq #0x1021480 jt 28 jf 8 (008) ld [30] (009) and #0xfffffff0 (010) jeq #0x1020340 jt 28 jf 11 (011) ld [30] (012) and #0xfffffff0 (013) jeq #0x1021480 jt 28 jf 29
...
could be :
(000) ldh [12]
(001) jeq #0x800 jt 2 jf 10
(002) ld [26] (003) and #0xfffffff0 (004) jeq #0x1020340 jt ok jf 5 (005) jeq #0x1021480 jt ok jf 6
(006) ld [30] (007) and #0xfffffff0 (008) jeq #0x1020340 jt ok jf 9 (009) jeq #0x1021480 jt ok jf ret0
...